George Galloway being a cocksocket again
Discussion
franki68 said:
I think it's very stupid for anyone to think all anti zionists are anti Semitic ,likewise I think it very stupid for anyone to think that all anti zionists aren't anti Semitic.
You could replace anti-zionist with hang-glider or lawnmower mechanic though. No one puts any effort into pushing the line that hang-gliders are all anti-semites though.Sprouts said:
No they don't have the same rights at all. Also, Israeli jews are the most openly racist creatures you could meet, not just with the Palestinians / Arab Israelis but with any non jews, like my good self. The amount of times I've been asked " why are you here? You're not jewish " is too numerous to mention.
I think Galloway wasn't told the bloke was Israeli, and he knows only too well that trying to debate with them is like banging your head on a brick wall. You will not get anywhere with the arrogant, racist pricks.
And that's me done on this subject.
By saying it's not racist to dismiss an entire nation as being beneath engaging with because they're arrogant, racist pricks? Isn't that like saying it's not racist to dislike black people because you think they're all lazy criminals? Or to dislike Indians because you think they're all dishonest money grabbers?I think Galloway wasn't told the bloke was Israeli, and he knows only too well that trying to debate with them is like banging your head on a brick wall. You will not get anywhere with the arrogant, racist pricks.
And that's me done on this subject.
However much it may tally with your own perceptions and experience it's a foolish attitude that precludes any useful debate and accentuates division.
SMGB said:
Hi is a comitted Arabist isnt he, Israel declines to be eliminated, and I can see that, so just refuding to talk to them isnt goig to move things forward. I dont think this gesture was aimed at the audience in that hall however.
I think his argument boils down to this.http://youtu.be/XuY5nc47cd4
This is why he is on the Arabs side, and not the Israeli side.
TheHeretic said:
I think his argument boils down to this.
http://youtu.be/XuY5nc47cd4
This is why he is on the Arabs side, and not the Israeli side.
Because he had a talk show where he could slaughter those who didn't know what they were talking about ,and hang up on those who did ? http://youtu.be/XuY5nc47cd4
This is why he is on the Arabs side, and not the Israeli side.
His point is that ajew should not have the right to return to a place where they were kicked out of and is holy to them , but that right which he denies to jews should be given to 'Palestinians' a substantial proportion of which have virtually no association with what is now Israel having been immigrantsorchildren of immigrants themselves? (see immigration figures into the west bank for example after 1967)
Zanier muhsain former PLO executive member
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism."
franki68 said:
Because he had a talk show where he could slaughter those who didn't know what they were talking about ,and hang up on those who did ?
His point is that ajew should not have the right to return to a place where they were kicked out of and is holy to them , but that right which he denies to jews should be given to 'Palestinians' a substantial proportion of which have virtually no association with what is now Israel having been immigrantsorchildren of immigrants themselves? (see immigration figures into the west bank for example after 1967)
Zanier muhsain former PLO executive member
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism."
Just saying what I think his position is. I realise you may be a bit more nutty on this subject than I. As for that chap you quote, I'm quite sure I could counter that with a state,net from some other PLO member. Is the Middle East problem going to be solved with spokesperson top trumps? His point is that ajew should not have the right to return to a place where they were kicked out of and is holy to them , but that right which he denies to jews should be given to 'Palestinians' a substantial proportion of which have virtually no association with what is now Israel having been immigrantsorchildren of immigrants themselves? (see immigration figures into the west bank for example after 1967)
Zanier muhsain former PLO executive member
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism."
TheHeretic said:
I think his argument boils down to this.
http://youtu.be/XuY5nc47cd4
This is why he is on the Arabs side, and not the Israeli side.
Exactlyhttp://youtu.be/XuY5nc47cd4
This is why he is on the Arabs side, and not the Israeli side.
TheHeretic said:
franki68 said:
Because he had a talk show where he could slaughter those who didn't know what they were talking about ,and hang up on those who did ?
His point is that ajew should not have the right to return to a place where they were kicked out of and is holy to them , but that right which he denies to jews should be given to 'Palestinians' a substantial proportion of which have virtually no association with what is now Israel having been immigrantsorchildren of immigrants themselves? (see immigration figures into the west bank for example after 1967)
Zanier muhsain former PLO executive member
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism."
Just saying what I think his position is. I realise you may be a bit more nutty on this subject than I. As for that chap you quote, I'm quite sure I could counter that with a state,net from some other PLO member. Is the Middle East problem going to be solved with spokesperson top trumps? His point is that ajew should not have the right to return to a place where they were kicked out of and is holy to them , but that right which he denies to jews should be given to 'Palestinians' a substantial proportion of which have virtually no association with what is now Israel having been immigrantsorchildren of immigrants themselves? (see immigration figures into the west bank for example after 1967)
Zanier muhsain former PLO executive member
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism."
franki68 said:
rohrl said:
You could replace anti-zionist with hang-glider or lawnmower mechanic though. No one puts any effort into pushing the line that hang-gliders are all anti-semites though.
You could replace many words with other words ,your comment is meaningless ,TheHeretic said:
SMGB said:
Hi is a comitted Arabist isnt he, Israel declines to be eliminated, and I can see that, so just refuding to talk to them isnt goig to move things forward. I dont think this gesture was aimed at the audience in that hall however.
I think his argument boils down to this.http://youtu.be/XuY5nc47cd4
This is why he is on the Arabs side, and not the Israeli side.
SMGB said:
Didnt click, I dont feel the Medja help here. Provokimg a response to get some "good footage" stinks on all sides IMHO. The region could be an economis power house and I wonder if the violennce blocking it helps keep some proffesionl ideaologues in post.
Didn't click? Well, that's a bit like walking out of a debate, really. How do you know what is contained therein, and what arguments are put forward? Galloway commented in the Indie article that the organisers should write to him c/o the PLO to canvass opinion.
But the PLO don't seem to have much representation in Palestine any more, do they?
What am I missing? Or is Georgeous George shooting from the lip again? Shirley he should have mentioned Hamas or Fatah who actually do hold political office through dint of votes cast. But not the PLO who are thin on the ground.
I only mention it because (people like) Galloway are wont to quote 'electoral' backing when it suits them. The man is a cynical media manipulator who remains 100% committed to the cause - being George Galloway and little else.
But the PLO don't seem to have much representation in Palestine any more, do they?
What am I missing? Or is Georgeous George shooting from the lip again? Shirley he should have mentioned Hamas or Fatah who actually do hold political office through dint of votes cast. But not the PLO who are thin on the ground.
I only mention it because (people like) Galloway are wont to quote 'electoral' backing when it suits them. The man is a cynical media manipulator who remains 100% committed to the cause - being George Galloway and little else.
MX7 said:
We could talk about declining to debate purely because of someone's nationality.
We could talk about Israel's creation, their right to exist, hummus, and their decades old conflict with the Arabs. How refreshing.
And you did a sterling job steering the discussion one way or the other. We could talk about Israel's creation, their right to exist, hummus, and their decades old conflict with the Arabs. How refreshing.
TheHeretic said:
And you did a sterling job steering the discussion one way or the other.
What?I know where you'd like this to head, and I find it a tedious as fk. I think what he said deserves slightly more than the usual Arab/Israel threads that all seem to disappear down exactly the same drain.
Would GG refuse to speak to an Israeli Arab? I suspect not.
MX7 said:
What?
I know where you'd like this to head, and I find it a tedious as fk. I think what he said deserves slightly more than the usual Arab/Israel threads that all seem to disappear down exactly the same drain.
Would GG refuse to speak to an Israeli Arab? I suspect not.
Where I would like it to head? Excuse me, if you want to accuse me of something, do so. Otherwise, take your underhand implications elsewhere.I know where you'd like this to head, and I find it a tedious as fk. I think what he said deserves slightly more than the usual Arab/Israel threads that all seem to disappear down exactly the same drain.
Would GG refuse to speak to an Israeli Arab? I suspect not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff